912-WP-18462-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 18462 OF 2024 Rohit Sagun Paste And Another ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra Throu. The Sec. School Education And Sports Dept And Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Prashant Bhavake for the Petitioners. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : September 30, 2026. P. C. : 1. The order dated 21st October, 2022 passed by respondent No. 5, Education Oicer, rejecting the proposal seeking approval to the appointment of the petitioners to the post of Peon has been impugned in present petition. 2. The facts, as borne out from the petition, are that due to retirement of four peons by end of September 2012 out of ive sanctioned posts, the Headmaster of petitioner No. 3 school submitted applications on 12th December, 2013 and 5th October, 2015 seeking permission for issuing advertisement. There was no response by the Harish 1 of 8 HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Digitally signed by HARISH VITHAL CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.10.01 10:53:24 +0530 912-WP-18462-2024.doc respondent No. 5, Education Oicer, and on 4th April, 2016, advertisement was published in the daily newspaper Tarun Bharat. Subsequently, interviews were conducted, and on 12th April, 2016, the school committee passed a resolution selecting petitioner No. 1, and the appointment was granted on 13th April, 2016. On 5th August, 2016, the proposal was forwarded to respondent No. 5 for approval, which was not decided, and a fresh proposal was submitted on 11th October, 2019. On 20th March, 2022, the deiciencies were communicated by respondent No. 5, which were complied with vide report dated 4th August, 2022. Despite compliance with the deiciencies, the proposal came to be rejected on 21st October, 2022. Hence, the present petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that though earlier the deiciencies had been complied with, fresh deiciencies were cited while rejecting the proposal. He has taken this Court through the deiciencies cited and would point out that in so far as deiciency Nos. 1, 3, and 4 are concerned, the same were complied with, and that deiciency No. 3 is completely vague as it does not specify which procedure had not been followed. He would further point out that deiciency No. 6, as regards the non-publishing of the advertisement in two newspapers, cannot be cited as a reason for rejection of the proposal as the advertisement was published in a widely circulating newspaper and the MEPS Act and Rules do not prescribe any Harish 2 of 8 912-WP-18462-2024.doc particular newspapers in which the advertisement should be published. He would draw support from the decision in the case of Gramvikas Shikshan Mandal And Others v. State of Maharashtra And Others; [dated 26th April, 2023 in WP-ST No.4493 of 2022] , annexed at page 110 of the petition, in order to contend that in the event permission was sought for issuance of an advertisement which was not responded, the management had no alternative but to advertise for suitable candidates to ill up the vacancy. He would submit that in so far as deiciency Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, the same refer to ban enforced by resolutions of 2010 and 2011. He submits that the ban was for a period of one year, which was extended for one year by the Government Resolution of 16th July, 2011, and the petitioner's appointment is of the year 2016. He would further submit that in so far as the issue of the staing pattern is concerned, which is also cited as deiciency, the decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal And Others v. The State of Maharashtra And Others (Writ Petition No. 6812 of 2024, decided on 2nd February, 2026) squarely covers the said issue. He submits that while rejecting the proposal, further deiciencies were cited at serial Nos. 11 to 14, and submits a compilation of documents in order to contend that all these deiciencies were already complied with and all documents have been submitted. 4. Learned AGP opposed the petition and would submit that by the Harish 3 of 8 912-WP-18462-2024.doc Government Resolution of 6th February, 2012, the advertisement was required to be published in two leading newspapers, and in the present case, the advertisement is published in a newspaper which cannot be said to be a leading newspaper. He would further submit that though an application was moved seeking permission for advertisement, what was required was a request for surplus employee, and as the same has not been done, the impugned order does not deserve interference. 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. By communication of 20th March, 2022, certain deiciencies were communicated, which were duly complied with by the management. Perusal of the said deiciencies would indicate that reliance has been placed on certain Government Resolutions which also form part of the present impugned order. It is not clear as to why, while considering the proposal in the irst instance, all the deiciencies which are now noted in the impugned order were not communicated to the management. It is expected that when the proposal is scrutinized, the Education Oicer would communicate all deiciencies arising out of the said proposal required to be complied with, instead of communicating the deiciencies in piecemeal manner. 7. Be that as it may. In the present case, in so far as the deiciencies at serial Nos. 1 and 4 are concerned, as regards index and pagination and veriication of the roster, the same had already been complied with Harish 4 of 8 912-WP-18462-2024.doc in the earlier instance. 8. The deiciency at serial No. 2, is as regard NOC not having been obtained for recruitment. The petitioner has placed on record the applications submitted seeking permission for publishing the advertisement on 12th December, 2013 and 5th October, 2015. Perusal of the applications would indicate that in the application of 12th December, 2013, it was speciically stated that there was only one peon working, and in the application of 5th October, 2015, it was speciied that there is not even a single peon working in the petitioner school, and therefore there is urgency. Section 5 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service ) Regulation Act, 1977 (for short “MEPS Act”) provides for the management to ill up the vacancy as and when the same arises. In the present case, due to inaction on the part of the Education Oicer, neither any communication was addressed sending surplus candidates, nor any permission was given for advertisement. The contention of the learned AGP that the application sought permission for advertisement and not information about the surplus employee cannot be accepted, as the application for advertisement is, in fact, an indication for permission to ill up the post, and therefore, in the event there are any surplus employees, it is the duty of the Education Oicer to respond to the said application and inform the management to absorb the surplus employees. The Harish 5 of 8 912-WP-18462-2024.doc deiciency at serial No. 3 does not specify the procedure which was not followed by the management and is vague. 9. In so far as the contention that the advertisement was not published in two newspapers is concerned, even if it is accepted that there is non-compliance with the GR, the same cannot constitute a solitary ground for rejection of the proposal for approval when all other conditions are complied with. At the highest, the same can be termed to be an irregularity and not an illegality in the appointment procedure if there is no other ground for rejection. 10. In so far as the deiciencies at serial Nos. 7 and 8 are concerned, the ban was only for a period of one year, extended by the Government Resolution of 16th July, 2011 for a period of one year thereafter, and the petitioner's appointment is much subsequent thereto. 11. The deiciency cited in respect of the staing pattern is covered by the decision in the case of Vikas Shikshan Mandal (supra), where the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has considered the issue as regards the various Government Resolutions pertaining to the ixing of the staing pattern. The Division Bench held in paragraphs 12.14 and 12.15 as under: "12.14 We are of considered view to hold that until the new staing patters were introduced in 2019 and 2020, the last staing policy introduced vide Government Resolution dated 25.11.2005 was holding ield. Thus, the conundrum created by Harish 6 of 8 912-WP-18462-2024.doc the various Government Resolutions from 2013 to 2019 & 2020 (IV category) over the staing pattern and the fate of the appointments made in the mean period, stands solved. Staing pattern sought to be introduced by Government Resolution of 2013 lost its efect ab initio in view of Government Resolution of 2015. Meaning thereby, the earlier staing pattern of 2005 stood superseded by the staing pattern of 2019 (for all categories excluding Class IV) and by the staing pattern of 2020 (for Class IV category), both operational prospectively from their respective dates of issuance. 12.15. The new staing pattern for Class IV employees is operational only w.e.f. 11.12.2020. It is trite law that a Government Resolution, a statute, an amendment is not retrospectively applicable unless expressly provided. Hence we reject the contention of the learned Assistant Government Pleader based on the objection recorded by the Education Oicer that Government Resolution of 2013 i.e. dated 23.10.2013 disqualiies the proposal for approval to the appointment of Petitioner No.3 which is made on 31.08.2014." 12. The said decision is a suicient answer to the deiciency cited by the Education Oicer. 13. In so far as the deiciencies at serial Nos. 11 to 14 are concerned, the documents produced on record indicate compliance with the said deiciencies, and it is not demonstrated that apart from the above, Harish 7 of 8 912-WP-18462-2024.doc there is any other non-compliance. 14. In light of the above, the impugned order is clearly unsustainable. We are inclined to allow the petition. 15. Respondent No. 5, Education Oicer, is directed to grant approval to the petitioner's appointment with efect from 13th April 2016 within a period of three weeks from today. 16. Respondent No. 4 is directed to include the name of petitioner No. 1 in the Shalarth Pranali and to allot the Shalarth ID to petitioner No. 1 within a period of two weeks thereafter, and the grant-in-aid arrears of salary to be released within a period of three weeks thereafter. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 8 of 8